Posted: Wed 18 Nov 2009 02:33 Post subject: Re: DNA
Powell wrote:
Are there any studies taking class and/or region into account?
I think it would be rather difficult to conduct a study on class as it relates to SSA admixture in the African American community simply because there isn't a clear definition of class in the U.S.. What one group determines to be upper class another group in that very same community might see as lower or middle class.
Quote:
I would expect professional people identifying as AA to have more white ancestry simply because black-identified professionals were more likely to seek marriages with the old "Mulatto Elite." I would expect poor and/or uneducated people identifying as AA to have much lower degrees of non-SSA ancestry.
I read the book Our Kind of People by Lawrence Otis Graham, which touches on the "Old Mulatto Elite". I would say based on reading his book that for a long period of time the most educated African American identified people may have had a lesser amount of SSA DNA than the rest of the African American identified community (with exceptions of course). However in todays society I feel like education is much easier to obtain than ever and if the context of "Professional People" refers to "Educated People" with one or more degrees than I hesitate to assume that the bulk of people today identifying as African American holding degrees would have a substantial amount more Caucasian DNA over the majority of the African American identified population.
Posted: Wed 18 Nov 2009 04:21 Post subject: Re: DNA
onlyhuman77 wrote:
I think it would be rather difficult to conduct a study on class as it relates to SSA admixture in the African American community simply because there isn't a clear definition of class in the U.S.. What one group determines to be upper class another group in that very same community might see as lower or middle class.
Joined: 25 Aug 2009 {Posts: 22 } Location: California
Posted: Tue 24 Nov 2009 06:06 Post subject:
I think some AA's probably feel offended when one rejects visible SSA. It may be assumed that the person choosing not self-identify as AA/BA, views AA's as less than, inferior and would rather be anything other than an AA/BA. They may believe that a mixed race person who does not identify as AA/BA, views him/herself as being too good to be AA/BA.
Some AA's may even view it as an issue of fairness, they may see it as unfair that mixed race people have the opportunity to choose how they self-identify and they do not have that same opportunity. They don't have the ability to escape racism and all the disadvantages that come with being AA/BA in our society. Their racial identity is chosen for them based on what they look like. Those are just my thoughts.
Also in my experience, I notice that AA's in my age group (under 30) seem to be more accepting of a mixed race persons choosing not to identify as AA/BA. Many times they do not even consider a mixed race person black unless they self-identify that way. I definitely see this occuring online all the time. However, it seems that AA's in my parents age range sternly believe that "if you have any Black in you you're Black." My father would not even consider calling himself mixed race and would be very upset if he knew I self-identified that way.
Also in my experience, I notice that AA's in my age group (under 30) seem to be more accepting of a mixed race persons choosing not to identify as AA/BA. Many times they do not even consider a mixed race person black unless they self-identify that way. I definitely see this occuring online all the time. However, it seems that AA's in my parents age range sternly believe that "if you have any Black in you you're Black." My father would not even consider calling himself mixed race and would be very upset if he knew I self-identified that way.
That is very interesting indeed. As you know, I believe that society would be more equitable (and more fun) if everyone could freely choose his/her own ethnicity and switch as often as desired.
I wonder if younger adults' leaning towards choice-tolerance is just a California thing? Does anyone have a feeling whether this is a nationwide phenomenon?
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 228 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Tue 24 Nov 2009 14:54 Post subject:
Yes, I agree. The younger generation of all "races" in America seem to be the same way in that regards. They call people what they answer to, basically. It's not until people get out into the "real world" where members of the "old guard" (on both sides) interfere with how the young people interact with one another. IMO, this is why many older Americans fought so hard against Hip Hop culture because it blurred the lines of whose who because now most of the young people are just "Hip Hop" - "color"/"race"/ethnicity, notwithstanding. Just my opinion.
You hear it in the music, especially R&B/Hip Hop/Reggae/Dancehall/Reggaeton. Many of the artists frequently mention women/men of "mixed" heritage throughout many of their songs. Mostly from the so-called "ghetto" folks, even though they are often portrayed as being so-called "one droppers".
It works both ways too. Young "White" (again, under 45) people are usually nothing like their parents/g-parents when it comes to how people identify and/or being culturally competent of non-"Anglo White" cultures, which causes a lot of racial drama in the first place. They are extremely open to and seemingly unafraid of non-"White" people (whether real or perceived) and I definitely have to say it's because of Hip Hop culture, hands down. And BET... as much as that hurts to say.
Posted: Tue 24 Nov 2009 15:36 Post subject: Identity
Shinynewthings wrote:
I think some AA's probably feel offended when one rejects visible SSA. It may be assumed that the person choosing not self-identify as AA/BA, views AA's as less than, inferior and would rather be anything other than an AA/BA. They may believe that a mixed race person who does not identify as AA/BA, views him/herself as being too good to be AA/BA.
Some AA's may even view it as an issue of fairness, they may see it as unfair that mixed race people have the opportunity to choose how they self-identify and they do not have that same opportunity. They don't have the ability to escape racism and all the disadvantages that come with being AA/BA in our society. Their racial identity is chosen for them based on what they look like. Those are just my thoughts.
Also in my experience, I notice that AA's in my age group (under 30) seem to be more accepting of a mixed race persons choosing not to identify as AA/BA. Many times they do not even consider a mixed race person black unless they self-identify that way. I definitely see this occuring online all the time. However, it seems that AA's in my parents age range sternly believe that "if you have any Black in you you're Black." My father would not even consider calling himself mixed race and would be very upset if he knew I self-identified that way.
That kind of AA attitude always puzzled me. They seem to be saying:
1) To say that you are white, multiracial or otherwise non-AA is a de facto statement that you think AAs are biologically inferior.
2) The vast majority of people in the U.S. do not identify as AA. Therefore, they by definition deem AAs inferior, but AAs don't get too upset about it.
3) Conclusion? AAs don't mind being deemed "inferior" but demand that Anglos and Creoles of recent traceable SSA ancestry be totally free of any negative thoughts about them (unlike the rest of the country).
Here is a take on the “hostility” question by a blogger. I read her post when it first appeared late last year, but came across it again recently.
Quote:
Black anger at the Tiger Woodses of the world comes from a nagging sense of our own inferior place in the American social hierarchy. Even those of us who love and embrace our blackness know that black is the one thing few other people in America want to be. Remember the Chris Rock joke about how the white male busboy in a concert hall wouldn’t want to trade places with him--a black man--even though Rock is rich, famous and successful? It’s funny, cause it’s true. So, while biracial Halle Berry gets a “Go, sister, go!” for proclaiming herself a black woman, and Barack Obama is embraced as a black man, we are suspicious of Tiger and Vin Diesel and those folks who confound us by not taking their “rightful” place in the African Diaspora. “Why don’t you want to black?” We wonder. It should not matter what someone else chooses to call themselves. Somehow, though, we can take the white busboy not wanting to be one of us, but someone who shares a bit of our history? Similar facial features? That stings too much.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 228 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Tue 24 Nov 2009 19:01 Post subject:
Powell wrote:
Quote:
That kind of AA attitude always puzzled me. They seem to be saying:
1) To say that you are white, multiracial or otherwise non-AA is a de facto statement that you think AAs are biologically inferior.
2) The vast majority of people in the U.S. do not identify as AA. Therefore, they by definition deem AAs inferior, but AAs don't get too upset about it.
3) Conclusion? AAs don't mind being deemed "inferior" but demand that Anglos and Creoles of recent traceable SSA ancestry be totally free of any negative thoughts about them (unlike the rest of the country).
1)In this country, and many parts of the world, "Black" people are seen as "inferior". And in this country, most lay-people conflate "AA" to equal "Black". I do not think this is an admittance of being so-called "biologically inferior" on the part of "AAs" who question people of obvious Afro-descent who reject an "AA"/"Black" identity. Rather, it's a defacto statement/sign of disgust and/or bewilderment of the person who denys being "AA"/"Black" even though they don't look much different from themselves and other "AA" family members. So it's more shock and awe that eventually turns into disgust because the Afro-descendant person doesn't want the "connection" and seems insulted that he/she is even considered "AA"... as if it is a plague or something.
2)See #1. Historically, "White" people and people afforded "White privilage" usually think "dark" people, but "AA"/"Black" people in particular, are inferior to "light" people, especially Anglo-European descended people. So it's rather obvious and really no need to be upset about something you already know... but someone who looks very similar to an "AA"/"Black" person vehemently rejecting an "AA"/"Black" ID is something else IMO.
3)"Don't mind being inferior"?? No, that's not it at all. When someone is "family" and they deny "you", it will hurt moreso than an "outsider" denying "you" because there is a "connection" or should be, IMO. It's common sense, when you think about it. Just like when "mixed" people get upset when an obviously "mixed" person IDs solely as "Black" even when it is known that person has a non-"Black" parent or family.
Joined: 25 Aug 2009 {Posts: 22 } Location: California
Posted: Wed 25 Nov 2009 07:52 Post subject:
Quote:
I wonder if younger adults' leaning towards choice-tolerance is just a California thing? Does anyone have a feeling whether this is a nationwide phenomenon?
That's a possibility given that almost everyone I know is mixed in some way. I think California may have fairly high concentrations of mixed race individuals, which may contribute to the lax attitudes toward individuals who choose to identify as biracial, multiracial as opposed to Black. While trying to get to know you, many of the younger people here will ask you what you're mixed with. They don't assume you are only AA/BA unless it's fairly clear. You can call yourself biracial or multiracial and no one will really have a problem with it because that's what you are.
That's why some of the experiences I've read on here are so foreign to me, because I don't experience the hostility or anger and it sounds a bit frightening to think I would be confronted or attacked for how I choose to self-identify . I've seen these lax attitudes about racial categorization online quite a few times as well, so among those under 30 in may be nationwide.
Subsequent messages split to How many non-A-A Americans see A-As as "inferior" in the "History of the U.S. Coloe Line" forum. Discussion of perceived inferiority should continue there. Discussion of "one-dropping" by A-As should continue here.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 228 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Wed 25 Nov 2009 20:30 Post subject:
Spiral
I never once said that "AAs"/"Black"-Americans see themselves as "inferior". If anything, that's what "AAs"/"Black"-Americans socially/politically fight against everyday in some type of capacity. Just as foreign "Blacks" had to fight for it in their native countries... especially if they come from a Western-Allied country where they are a "minority".
That answer to the quoted statement I made has to be put in it's proper context (which was part of a larger answer to Powells post) if it is to be received how it was intended. Everyone on this site knows what I was conveying with that message because everyone here is well versed on US Racialism and how the direct descendants of the enslaved Africans/"Negros" (current day "AAs"/"Blacks") are perceived in this country. Whether one agrees with that notion isn't being debated because it doesn't matter. Perception rules over logic anyday of the week for most people, unfortunately.
People see what they want to see, most times, so it would be very naive to act as if there isn't an unspoken rule of thumb around these parts that puts "AAs"/"Blacks" on the bottom of the social ladder. Or the fact that that type of thinking is a direct cause/effect from "Jim Crow"/"White Supremacy" (which only ended 40 years ago but the "Supremacy" thing... *sigh*... we have to work on that one but hue-manity can and will get there... hopefully ), which took it's cues from it's predecessor, "race"/ancestry based enslavement, aka, TSA-Slavery.
That kind of thinking can't be wiped out in less than 50 years when that type of thinking ("White Supremacy") was the rule of thumb for this land for over 300 years (1619-1965), unabated.
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 {Posts: 15 } Location: NE Florida
Posted: Wed 02 Dec 2009 08:00 Post subject:
I remember being a child and not really understanding why some people in my family (including myself) were supposed to be 'black'. My maternal grandmother, her father, several of great-uncles (who blended into white society up North), an aunt, numerous cousins could pass for white and were often mistaken for it. My paternal grandfather looked like what he was, a mixture of Eastern Siouan (Catawba and Saponi) and Choctaw. I loved to ask questions--I still do. I wanted to know why were we black. My mother would simply tell me "because we are". I knew that we were mostly descended from generations of mulatto unions. I couldn't under this logic at all when I was a child and felt it was really unfair--how did part black make all black? It was made even worse since were not culturally AA; we associated more with my father's side of the family.
I have had some family members react with disbelief or scorn when I don't identify as AA. They are very proud of their "looks"--many of them are light to very light-skinned with gray, green, or hazel eyes. A few are even red-haired like me. Even with this they are very quick to say that they are black. If any racial mixing is mentioned, it is quickly shrugged off as, "Everybody knows we've got plenty of white blood." This is only on my mother's side; my father never considered himself to be even remotely AA, even though his mother had some AA ancestry.
I cannot be sure but I think that the negative reactions I received were based on anger that I was trying to elevate myself above the group. It wasn't as if I was trying to claim something that wasn't true but I was going off in a direction that nobody else had done (or was allowed to do) before.
I'd like to say more but my poor 2-year-old is having a restless night. Off to nurse him back to sleep.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
), which took it's cues from it's predecessor, "race"/ancestry based enslavement, aka, TSA-Slavery.
